Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eagl on June 16, 2005, 02:08:57 PM
-
Motivations and intelligence aside, as a guy "on the front lines" the important part of this story is that the guy was nabbed due to civilian intervention. There IS an upside to this whole Iraq mess, and it is encouraging as hell to see the Iraqi population decide to take charge of their own destiny.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/index.html
The Iraqis trusted us after the first Persian Gulf War, and they got burned badly when we pulled out before the job was finished. The mere fact that they trust us enough to turn in the bad guys living in their neighborhoods means that we've "turned the corner" and the Iraqi people believe in the message we brought with us when we invaded. The important part in any revolution is when the average Joe internalizes the dream and actually ACTS on his dreams. I personally think we're seeing this in action, even though the media rarely reports on the results of this interaction. Occupation is a tough business no matter what the motivation, but the civilian populace ratting on the insurgency to the occupation forces or the local government is a great sign that things are moving in the right direction.
There will always be "easy" targets for the insurgents to build their casualty lists, and that's why they're called terrorists. They're losing the war so they're inflicting what losses they can on whoever they can manage to kill. They're turning the population against themselves, while US troops are busily rebuilding stuff and giving kids the candy from their MREs. If we can keep the growing Iraqi security forces from repeating the gross excesses of past adminstrations, I think the whole situation will go down in history as a "win".
I don't expect anyone else to agree with me, but as a student of military history I've learned that in every single conflict the US has ever been invoved in, there has been a vocal minority that has shouted doom and gloom up to the end. Tens of thousands of dead GIs had little immediate, measurable impact in Vietnam, but 30 years later an objective historical review shows that Vietnam had a measurable impact in shortening the cold war and isolating the spread of communism. Will history show what our investment in blood and resources in the middle east actually means? I think it will, and I think that after all the mistakes and successes are tallied we'll see that we have altered the regional makeup for the better.
-
I would say yes.
This is a job that had to be done sooner or later. Was this the exact ritght time in history to do it? who freekin knows?
lazs
-
Enh?
I beg ta differ.. vietnam was many things; but it sure was NOT what you imply it is.
-
We were never allowed to fight Vietnam as total war where we destroy all their infrastructure and target the civillian population to destroy their will to fight, along with blockading all supplies and releif routes into the country. Our government gave Vietnam away, our militairy could not loose what they were never allowed to fight in the first place.
We almost wiped out the VC army in the Tet offensive. But crap like Hanoi Jane and our home grown antiwar movement kept N. Vietnam from throwing in the towel. My old man retired as a Russin linguist and militairy analyst from NSA. The big joke after the fall of communist Russia was how cheap it was for Moscow to win the Vietnam war by funding the ideot children in the american antiwar groups. North Vietnam did not win the war. We gave it away.
-
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Thursday reported the capture of a man described as al Qaeda's leader in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul."
Described by who?
-
Banned yet again Gsholtz?
-
whups.. disregard the last. New rules. Musn't feed the trolls.
-
Originally posted by Ze Günterman!
Constantly.
Than why don't you take the hint? This board is private property, it's as bad as trespassing.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Absolutely. I must admit I'm a bit curious as to the source or basis for your premise tho.
Doesn't look look like a famous victory to me...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1118957147_22gialongstreet.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ze Günterman!
Naw, it aint.
Yes it is. HTC spends their money to maintain these boards, and for some reason you believe you have the right to constantly break thier rules. You're putting your pathelogical need to troll this board above the desires of the people that pay thier hard earned cash to have it here. It's exactly like tresspassing.
-
Freeze him Thrawn. No replys, just don't answer the guy's posts on ANY level.
Yer feeding the troll.
-
It's clear that a lot of people still don't see the forest, for the trees.
The Vietnam war was a battle in a larger war. That's important to remember.
Who was it that said it's no good to win the battle if the war is lost? Sun Tzu? I'm not sure anyone was able to really consciously understand this, but Regan was the one who put the cold war to bed and he was only able to do so because of the groundwork that had been laid during the Vietnam war.
Look at it this way - in the Vietnam war, the US spent an enormous amount of money and lives into developing offensive tools. The first laser guide bombs and the SA-2 SAM are awesome examples. It wasn't until the first gulf war until these vietnam war innovations were finally put up against each other, with a victor crowned. In the end, the culmination of US offensive warfare developments completely dominated the defensive innovations of the Soviet Union. In the gulf war, a single F-15E was downed by an SA-2, a defensive weapon that was introduced to great effect in Vietnam and virtually un-improved through the 1990s. The scale of technological development made it clear that the Western model of progress could out-strip the soviet/communist model in the long term. The Iraqis had the hands-down best air defense system money could buy, second only to the indegenous systems fielded by the Chinese and the Soviets themselves. And we took it down in about one week with a handful of losses.
That's the victory of Vietnam - we set the stage for the cold war conflict, and the best of the West, both in economic terms (Germany reunification) and military terms (Gulf war 1) came out in clear favor of western doctrine. Vietnam was no more than a single battle in the cold war and as tragic as it was, our withdrawl there was a tactical defeat but a strategic victory. It bled resources from our opponent that could not be recovered, and it led our opponent down a path of defensive military innovation that would ultimately be surpassed by our economic and military progress.
Right or wrong, that's what happened. And it's happening again, with the same crowd of nay-sayers shouting how bad we are for caring enough to act with decisive power. Look at the headlines from 3 years ago, check out the headlines from a month after the 9/11 attacks, and check the headlines from the no-kidding front lines in Iraq. Then take a guess as to what history will say about all this. My guess is that history will say the proximate cause for the war was flawed, but the background reasoning was sound and the results will speak for themselves. If only more Americans would work FOR something instead of AGAINST every damn thing.
-
Originally posted by Ze Günterman!
Exactly what have I cost HTC? What sort of lock/gate/security am I circumventing if I'm trespassing?
Nothing.
Money, specifically Skuzzy's time which costs money. That being said, I am going to take Hang's advice and not have it cost anymore of my time.
-
Originally posted by Ze Günterman!
Exactly what have I cost HTC? What sort of lock/gate/security am I circumventing if I'm trespassing?
Nothing.
Nothing certainly.
We are the guest of HTC if HTC don't want us they don't have to justify anything it's their house.
I find pretty questionnable your attitude here if they closed the door you don't have to enter throught the window,it's simply incorrect and unpolite.
-
No Shaden. This is Gsholz. He's Banned. he's in violation of the User Agreement.
Further, this subject (vietnam) has been thorougly hashed out with this very same guy no less than 10 times. Has nothing to do with his political stance, has everything to do with pissing on the community.
Yah wanna feed the troll, go ahead.. I don't; and won't.
Yahy wanna talk politics, religion, hate groups or internationalisim, and yer a legit memeber of the community, I'd love to have a rational discussion with yah on this or any other subject.
But I refuse to feed this illegitimate troll. (ze gunterman; aka Gsholz)
Cheers!
-
That may very well be true, but that's not what people remember.
Ummm, maybe in your part of the world.
-
Originally posted by Ze Günterman!
That's just it. I'm not entering through the window. I'm still using the front door. It may be impolite, but then I don't particularly feel I owe HTC any favours considering their treatment of me. If I'm to be condemned for trolling at least I'm going to have the pleasure of trolling a little first.
It won't really make you feel better.
IMO the only cure is some vacation from the OC ,then you can ask to came back and show you are not what you are showing currently.
It don't change my perception of you yet it's just that when I see a friend making something I think wrong, I warn him.
But you are the one controlling your destiny :) no one else can.
-
Where did you got your quote from Steve ?
eeekkk look like I can to a search :D
please discard this post.
-
Perhaps have you been too far ?
I'm far from sharing the opinion of Hangtime or Steve to name a few and expressed sometime violently my opposition to their view.
But I'm still here ...
So ?
What ending like a martyr will change ?
-
Gunterman,
I won't compare the current SAM systems against current USAF systems because I CAN'T. They're current systems and any worthwhile comparison is by definition classified. The only thing I'll say is that I have some hope of survival even though I'm flying the modern equivalent of the 10 meter aluminum sphere. If you don't know what that means, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Nice try though.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Motivations and intelligence aside, as a guy "on the front lines" the important part of this story is that the guy was nabbed due to civilian intervention. There IS an upside to this whole Iraq mess, and it is encouraging as hell to see the Iraqi population decide to take charge of their own destiny.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/index.html
The Iraqis trusted us after the first Persian Gulf War, and they got burned badly when we pulled out before the job was finished. The mere fact that they trust us enough to turn in the bad guys living in their neighborhoods means that we've "turned the corner" and the Iraqi people believe in the message we brought with us when we invaded. The important part in any revolution is when the average Joe internalizes the dream and actually ACTS on his dreams. I personally think we're seeing this in action, even though the media rarely reports on the results of this interaction. Occupation is a tough business no matter what the motivation, but the civilian populace ratting on the insurgency to the occupation forces or the local government is a great sign that things are moving in the right direction.
There will always be "easy" targets for the insurgents to build their casualty lists, and that's why they're called terrorists. They're losing the war so they're inflicting what losses they can on whoever they can manage to kill. They're turning the population against themselves, while US troops are busily rebuilding stuff and giving kids the candy from their MREs. If we can keep the growing Iraqi security forces from repeating the gross excesses of past adminstrations, I think the whole situation will go down in history as a "win".
I don't expect anyone else to agree with me, but as a student of military history I've learned that in every single conflict the US has ever been invoved in, there has been a vocal minority that has shouted doom and gloom up to the end. Tens of thousands of dead GIs had little immediate, measurable impact in Vietnam, but 30 years later an objective historical review shows that Vietnam had a measurable impact in shortening the cold war and isolating the spread of communism. Will history show what our investment in blood and resources in the middle east actually means? I think it will, and I think that after all the mistakes and successes are tallied we'll see that we have altered the regional makeup for the better.
great post eagl. I agree with you and it is good to think that perhaps our grandkids won't need to be garrisoning Iraq.
-
Originally posted by eagl
It's clear that a lot of people still don't see the forest, for the trees.
February 16, 1945
"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
Our VIETNAM people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies' side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists.
From 1941 to 1945 we fought bitterly, sustained by the patriotism, of our fellow-countrymen and by the promises made by the Allies at YALTA, SAN FRANCISCO and POTSDAM.
When the Japanese were defeated in August 1945, the whole Vietnam territory was united under a Provisional Republican Government, which immediately set out to work. In five months, peace and order were restored, a democratic republic was established on legal bases, and adequate help was given to the Allies in the carrying out of their disarmament mission.
But the French Colonialists, who betrayed in wartime both the Allies and the Vietnamese, have come back, and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war in order reestablish their domination. Their invasion has extended to South Vietnam and is menacing us in North Vietnam. It would take volumes to give even an abbreviated report of the crisis and assassinations they are committing everyday in this fighting area.
This aggression is contrary to all principles of international law and the pledge made by the Allies during World War II. It is a challenge to the noble attitude shown before, during, and after the war by the United States Government and People. It violently contrasts with the firm stand you have taken in your twelve point declaration, and with the idealistic loftiness and generosity expressed by your delegates to the United Nations Assembly, MM. BYRNES, STETTINIUS, AND J.F. DULLES.
The French aggression on a peace-loving people is a direct menace to world security. It implies the complicity, or at least the connivance of the Great Democracies. The United Nations ought to keep their words. They ought to interfere to stop this unjust war, and to show that they mean to carry out in peacetime the principles for which they fought in wartime.
Our Vietnamese people, after so many years of spoliation and devastation, is just beginning its building-up work. It needs security and freedom, first to achieve internal prosperity and welfare, and later to bring its small contribution to world-reconstruction.
These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.
What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.
I am, Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,
Respectfully Yours,
Ho Chi Minh"
-
Am I missing something? Was a post deleted between Laz's and Hangtime's up top just before mine? And Gsholz a banned person? This makes the conversation a bit surreal and incoherant.......OK....life goes on...scratches head.......:cool:
-
I think somebody found one of Jack Black's leftover cans of VaPOOriser.
-
I think Vietnam was a horrible brutal mistake for many and a horrible brutal atrocity for some. And if the intent was to win the cold war it was the lamest tactic to accomplish that end that could have been devised.
I think Iraq is a dishonest missguided half failed act of aggression that if it was intended to win the war on terror is the lamest tactic to accomplish that end that could have been devised.
The millions of south east asians and the 100s of thousands of Iraqis that have died as a result of these failed strategies and dishonest intelligence and dimplomacy by the United States deserved far better from the beacon of democrocy and freedom in the world.
That is my honest opinion on both issues.
I guess I see it differntly then Eagl. I guess we read different books or something.
can I be moderator now?
-
Originally posted by Torque
February 16, 1945
"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:...(edited for length)
I am, Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,
Respectfully Yours,
Ho Chi Minh"
Most excellent point. Ho Chi Minh DID approach the U.S. before going with Mao in China. We sorta screwed the proverbial pooch on that one.
BUT as far as if the U.S. WON the war, well, it wasn't a war. It was a Police Action. We never declared war on V.N. Can't loose a war you never started. We went in, and then left. I for one regret our letting down the V.N people both before (see above) and then by allowing pressure from home to make us withdraw our troops.
KINDA like what is going on now with Iraq. I swear, I don't think 1/2 the U.S. population understands concepts of "resolve" and "finishing what you start". Unfort., too many people have 2 min attention spans in this country. I am quite happy that we have a commander in chief who will follow through with what he started. (KUDOS Mr. Bush)
I agree whole heartedly with the first post of this thread. Was a good read.
-
Pongo, did you ever read Sorley's "A Better War"?
I'd be interested in your opinion; I'm sure it would be different than mine but that's why I'm interested.
I'll send my copy to the frozen north if you like.
-
Ho actually sent eight letters to Harry Truman in 1945 and 1946 appealing for American aid, all ignored by Harry.
Interesting (and long) treatment here (http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/pent1.html) . Haven't read it all myself yet. I went looking for why Truman didn't even answer Ho.
Pretty interesting reading so far. Some stuff I didn't know, for sure. Or had read and forgotten. ;) Four sections (pages) of it.
-
Don't feed the GSCHOLZ. Thank you.
-
I didnt Toad and I should.
I will look for it here.
-
If you don't find it, let me know. I think it's been out of print a while.
Quite a bit of it is plain old history and can be dry, tough sledding at times. The overall piece is worth it in my opinion. Extremely well documented; the voluminous footnotes in the back are worth stopping to read as you go through.
I'm not saying it is THE definitive text but reading it does give a different view that is pretty well supported with documentation.
It will challenge some long held beliefs on both sides of the question.
I found it very interesting. It doesn't have much good to say about Westmoreland, that's for sure.
-
Tens of thousands of dead GIs had little immediate, measurable impact in Vietnam, but 30 years later an objective historical review shows that Vietnam had a measurable impact in shortening the cold war and isolating the spread of communism.
====
This makes sense. the only point I would make is: Had Vietnam been allowed to follow its own degeneration and turn communist, without interference from west, would the world today be much different?
My gut feeling is no.
Vietnam is the greatest single failure the United States has ever experienced.
-
just curious, but can't HT ban a particual I.P. as opposed to just a bbs I.D.?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
...and the 100s of thousands of Iraqis that have died as a result of these failed strategies and dishonest intelligence and dimplomacy by the United States deserved far better from the beacon of democrocy and freedom in the world.
According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) between 22,248 and 25,229 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion began. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
The Lancet is often quoted as saying there were 100,000 deaths due to coalition action, but the Lancet's study actually estimates the total number of deaths ranges somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. That's like saying St Louis is somewhere between New York and LA. This estimate lacks somewhat in it's precision.
I'll take IBC's numbers over the Lancet. IBC does not count Iraqi military casualties and the military number is more difficult to pin down with an internet search but estimates range from 10,000 to 50,000 military casualties. I guess that for now I'll have to be content with the imprecise data on that.
While 75,000 is horrendous, it is not "100's of thousands."
-
Originally posted by WMLute
just curious, but can't HT ban a particual I.P. as opposed to just a bbs I.D.?
Of course...easy as pie. The problem is that he'll just get different one, even on broadband.
Regarding the CCCP's funding of the anti-war movement in the 60's...can anyone provide links to the data from the KGB's archives that proves this? I have heard it was true for about 30 years now yet would like to see it for myself.
-
pongo... you can get the book used on amazon for reasonable it is paperback version. Great read and great insight into how and why current war is fought the way it is.. Abrahms was a military genius.
lazs
-
"modern" wars are only fought the way they are when super powers invade countries that have no hope of defending themselves.
"modern" wars of that kind look very much like not so modern wars fought since biblical times.
When two "modern" countries fight each other that have some respect for the military capability of the other country, IE both countries have a reasonable ability to threaten each other then they look alot like not so modern wars.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"modern" wars are only fought the way they are when super powers invade countries that have no hope of defending themselves.
".
before the gulf war, iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and as the media told us, they were "battle hardened" and the US would need at least 50,000 body bags.
pongo, you never miss a chance to take a poke at the USA.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"modern" wars are only fought the way they are when super powers invade countries that have no hope of defending themselves.
So what part of the "modern" wars where powers invade countries that have no hope of defending themselves looks like the sack/pillage of Jerusalem by the Crusaders?
There's a big difference Pongo, and you know it. Where in Biblical times did the invading power try to bring its vanquished enemy up to "first world" status so it could compete in the market place and have it's own stable form of government?
Where did the invaders say they planned on leaving as soon as they could?
Where in modern times have the invaders rounded up entire communities and put them to the sword, man, woman and child?
-
Toad,
Isn't there a story every couple of months about this happening in various African countries? I seem to recall entire villages wiped out, with upwards of 100,000 slaughtered.
-
But do Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, etc. represent what Pongo describes as
""modern" wars are only fought the way they are when super powers invade countries that have no hope of defending themselves."
I don't think the ruling establishments of any of those countries can begin to qualify as "superpowers".
When I read his post, I figured he was talking about the US superpower invading Iraq which had no hope of defending itself.
Even though Iraq did have a high-ranking military establishment size-wize, I think we all knew they were not in the same league with us. The only thing that gave any pause was whether or not they actually had the WMD to use against us during the invasion. It's clear even in the Downing Street Memo and "memo #2" that the Brits were making the assumption that they may use such weapons against invading troops.
So, despite the size of Iraq's military establishment, in the absence of WMD they were a little league T-ball team going up against the NY Yankees. (When taken from the perspective of the air/land battle doctrine).
-
Just some suggested reading on the whole Iraq thing
(http://www.borrowersrecommend.co.uk/images/Revolution-Day.jpg)
(http://www.westminsterbookshop.co.uk/images/475/0330418904.jpg)
A different viewpoint perhaps?
Other than that I shan't say a word.
-
I think I'll skip Omaar's book.
Much has been written of the Stockholm syndrome which finds hostages identifying with their captors. Less is written of Rooftop syndrome, in which war correspondents are held hostage by the voracious appetite of 24-hour television news. Rageh Omaar was one such victim. He does not discuss the condition in Revolution Day, yet its effects circumscribe his book. His account of the war on Iraq rarely leaves Baghdad and, not often enough, the confines of the Ministry of Information and later the Palestine Hotel.
That said, this is a worthwhile account of what it was like to be a BBC correspondent in Baghdad in the build-up to and execution of the war. The centrepiece is more the experience of the correspondent than any particular new understanding of who we went to war with or whether it was a good idea to do so. His best writing is reserved for the American attack on his hotel and the killing and wounding of Reuters journalists in their office two floors above his. And nothing can take away from the uncertainty and fear the 140 journalists endured by staying on in Baghdad to witness the American assault.
Simpson sounds a bit more like it.
None the less, it makes sense for Simpson to pull together his two decades of reporting on Iraq into one volume; and, as a quick canter through the history, leavened by reportage, it works. If you want to know, more or less, how we got to where we are, this is not a bad way of finding out, and it is very readable. Simpson takes us through the lead up to the war, including the rise of the neo-cons in Washington, providing few revelations but good colour and quotes, and occasional insightful comments. Reflecting on sanctions, he writes: "The first Gulf war was imposed on George Bush Senior, in the sense that he wouldn't have fought it if Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait.
The second Gulf war ... was a matter of deliberate choice for his son, George W. But Bill Clinton, who always wanted everyone to think that his heart was in the right place, killed more Iraqis than either of them by a policy of slow strangulation." He is good at debunking the simple moral certainties of pro- and anti-war camps. But he does have a habit of writing others out of the story; for example, explaining that in 2003 Saddam Hussein chose to give an interview to Tony Benn rather than himself because the questions would be softer, he omits to add that Saddam also gave an interview to Dan Rather of CBS, whose questions were very skilful. Saddam understood that however important the correspondent, the Americans matter more than the British.
-
Interesting article about Asymmetric Warfare...
http://www.theestimate.com/public/110300.html
-
"and as the media told us, they were "battle hardened""
The media says lots of things. Look who owns it.
If the US had been willing to take some casualties doing it the Iraqis could have been ousted from Kuwiet with
Your all focusing on biblical. Just pretend I said ancient.
You all think that no peoples were ever invaded in ancient times under the excuse of modernising them? Most anyone that sees themselves as enlightend will use that excuse.
What I was saying that seems hard to follow I guess is the time doenst matter, what matters is the military relationships of the two combatants.
We need to save them from themselves is just the normal way that the unassailabley supperior force justifies attacking someone that is absolutly no threat to them.
It has ever been so.